List private network ports

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real value: the exact OAuth scopes needed, the warning that full/read defaults do NOT grant networking, backend ownership/feature/2FA enforcement, and the domain rule that 'Reserved is not connected'. It stops short of describing pagination or result ordering, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the returned data, then the state caveat, then the permission constraint — every sentence carries non-redundant information. The scope sentence is slightly dense (mixing read and manage permissions for a read-only tool), but nothing is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter, read-only list tool with annotations covering safety and a fully documented schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it discloses the returned fields, the auth requirement, and the enforcement model. The remaining gap is that no output schema exists to explain result shape, and the description only names the fields rather than their types or pagination behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There is a single required network_id parameter with 100% schema description coverage (UUID format, lowercase, exact match, 36 chars), so the schema carries the full semantic load. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is the expected baseline 3 when coverage is complete.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Opens with a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('owned network ports') and enumerates the returned facets (fixed DHCP addresses, generations, attachment states), which tells the agent exactly what this call yields. It does not, however, name or contrast with the closest sibling, list_service_private_ports, so an agent must infer the distinction between 'owned' and 'service' ports on its own.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gates usage by permission scope ('Requires explicit networking:read for reads'), which is a genuine prerequisite, but it never states when to prefer this tool over list_service_private_ports or list_network_attachment_candidates. Usage is implied rather than directed.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.